MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995676884 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2019-0182

White and clear wings in bats (Chiroptera)

2019· article· en· W2995676884 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jens Rydell, M. Brock Fenton, Ernest C.J. Seamark, Paul W. Webala, Tore Christian Michaelsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrepuscularCamouflageDuskAposematismBiologyInsectivorePredationWhite (mutation)EcologyZoologyPredator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

White or clear (“whitish”) wings are a distinct feature in about 30 species of tropical insectivorous bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) belonging to three families (Emballonuridae, Molossidae, and Vespertilionidae). Such wings may provide camouflage against the sky at dusk and dawn, when bats commute to and from the roost and are vulnerable to aerial predation from birds. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the contrast of black, white, and transparent plastic models against the evening sky. Compared with normally dark wings, white and particularly transparent wings indeed reduce the contrast against the sky and may also prevent overheating in bats flying in daylight. Whitish wings could facilitate earlier evening emergence and later morning return, increasing access to crepuscular or diurnal insects as food. But whitish wings become maladaptive near artificial lights, where they are highly visible when illuminated against the dark sky. Pale but colored (not whitish) wings and reticulated patterns on translucent wings in some African and south Asian bats may be variations on the same theme, functional as camouflage against a lit background of vegetation and shades.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207